3 ms·

I think "psuedo-open-source" and "close to Open Source" convey something vastly different. The former implies, by definition, that it's fake Open Source, i.e. w

by ezekg 2y ago

I think "psuedo-open-source" and "close to Open Source" convey something vastly different. The former implies, by definition, that it's fake Open Source, i.e. what most would call "open-washing." Fair Source was literally created from a CTA to stop open-washing [0]. We can absolutely say that Fair Source is close to Open Source without claiming it is Open Source, because it is close to Open Source if we look at raw user freedoms, and especially if we compare it to the typical understanding of source-available and closed-source. It's helpful to visualize these differences on a gradient. Fair Source is literally on the cusp of Open Source when visualizing that gradient, and even becomes Open Source. [0]: https://x.com/adamhjk/status/1687113805237714944 https://x.com/adamhjk/status/1687113805237714944

woodruffw 2y ago
> I think "psuedo-open-source" and Fair Source convey something vastly different. Yes, that was my point: someone who doesn't know anything about "Fair Source" might have reasonable value associations about the word "Fair" that aren't actually present in the terms of the FSL. In particular, being constrained from making any sort of modification that could potentially be a competitive risk for the original author is both a massive poison pill and is not consistent with what OSS people typically consider to be "fair" (or compatible with received notions of software freedom). The basic version of my argument is this: if it was named the "Eventually Open Source But Currently Not License," there would be no value judgment to be concerned about here. But the use of "Fair" is clearly meant to communicate a normative position that, in reality, muddies the waters and dilutes the benefit to the commons by maintaining the author's interests. And this is fine (IMO), as long as it isn't obscured by words like "fair."

by ezekg 2y ago

woodruffw 2y ago

> I think "psuedo-open-source" and Fair Source convey something vastly different. Yes, that was my point: someone who doesn't know anything about "Fair Source" might have reasonable value associations about the word "Fair" that aren't actually present in the terms of the FSL. In particular, being constrained from making any sort of modification that could potentially be a competitive risk for the original author is both a massive poison pill and is not consistent with what OSS people typically consider to be "fair" (or compatible with received notions of software freedom). The basic version of my argument is this: if it was named the "Eventually Open Source But Currently Not License," there would be no value judgment to be concerned about here. But the use of "Fair" is clearly meant to communicate a normative position that, in reality, muddies the waters and dilutes the benefit to the commons by maintaining the author's interests. And this is fine (IMO), as long as it isn't obscured by words like "fair."